Does anyone have any actual pictures, and not just simulations?
I think the 2nd photo in the OP is a real photo.
I don’t need ‘help’ but thanks for the insinuation that I am obtuse. I was asking what sex act you think you are seeing in the monument consisting of two sets of arms. Your previous post was anything but explicit, and in fact was about as obscured as a Victorian womens’ fashions, hence the question as to what you are observing in the artwork.
Stranger
I was explicit before.
Relates to oral sex.
It is weird that you are asking me for a more detailed description while claiming you are clear on what is being talked about.
Mods, please let me know how far I (or anyone) can go here in describing sex acts to make it clear for some who insist on details.
Reminds me very much of Dali.
I’m used to enjoying his unsettling art, but it’s an odd choice for MLK.
My wife’s comment: “Considering how unfaithful he was, maybe this isn’t the best way to commemorate him. Regardless, his relationship with his wife has nothing to do with why we remember him.”
No, you weren’t, and now you are being weirdly combative and disingenuous about it. I stated that I didn’t see a sexual act in it, even though the abstraction of two sets of arms had a body horror aesthetic to it, to which you responded, “Really?”, and are now pretending that there is some kind of broad prohibition about referencing sexual positions or acts that would probably past muster on CBS without comment.
Stranger
Yes, I was.
How more explicit do you want me to be?
If you squint and crop (virtually) the second photo, it’s not clear that it’s two sets of arms. it can be seen as someones ass, thighs. The second pair of hands is grabbing the ass while giving a blowjob.
I don’t know why @Whack-a-Mole is so prude. This is a board where pan-fried semen has been talked about.
I’m not a prude. Far from it.
Just not sure a big, public statue of Coretta (or someone) giving Martin a blowjob is an ideal representation of what MLK was on about.
YMMV
(Although I will admit to being prude enough that I am glad I missed the pan-fried semen thread and don’t even want to ask…some things I never want to know.)
The London 2012 Olympics logo was Lisa Simpson giving head. It takes imagination to see the numbers, not the sex act. That was a flat logo, though. This? Okay, one angle kind of makes it look like a BJ, but there are plenty of other angles.
(Although I can see it now: “My office window faced the blow-job side of the MLK statue, and it ruined my productivity; I couldn’t stop sneaking looks all day long!”)
Okay, I can kinda see it now.
ITA 100%. Not so much who approved it, but HOW was it approved?
There WERE reports about MLK’s very active extramarital sex life, so maybe it was an homage, conscious or not, to that?
I can’t even figure out what it’s supposed to be or represent. But “abomination” seems like about the right noun for it, and “horrible” and “ugly” about the right adjectives.
It’s supposed to represent the embrace between Dr King and Coretta Scott King when he was named as the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, as shown in a famous photo.
You’d think that could be memorialized in a more conventional and respectful way.
I think it can be difficult to accurately depict someone in the form of a statue, especially when the honoree is well known to the observer. I remember an attempt at a statue of Lucille Ball that was widely disliked.
What a funny old world we Iive in. I just happened to catch Terry Gross on NPR as she walked through the sculpture with the artist just a day or so ago.
At least I think it was Terry Gross. Anyway, she seemed quite taken by it as she walked through. She even seemed to catch her breath as she reached the center and the sky or “the heavens” were made visible. It really made me wish I could go see it.
So maybe it’s better in person?
We can hope.
I dunno, the second photo, to me, looks like someone hugging a large turd.
(oops…are we allowed to say “turd” here?)
mmm